House Panel Approves Plan To Freeze School Aid in 1997

Add immigration to the list of contentious items in the House
spending bill for education, which passed the Appropriations Committee
late last month and would freeze federal school aid in fiscal 1997.

Politically charged language would prohibit any of the money in the
bill from benefiting immigrants who are living in the country
illegally.

President Clinton pledged to veto the bill unless school funding is
increased and certain programs are rescued from termination, such as
the Goals 2000: Educate America Act.

The committee passed the bill June 25 on a 27-17 vote. It could
reach the full House this week. The committee's plan would provide
$25.2 billion in discretionary funds for the Department of Education
for the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1.

Two days of debate over the bill ended with a spirited exchange over
education spending.

"We don't have to do what we're doing in this bill, which is
abandoning children," said Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., who said it
would take $2.6 billion more to maintain current Education Department
services.

House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said Republicans and
Democrats are on opposite ends of a philosophical divide.

"I don't think it's the function of the federal government to
educate our kids," he said. "I for one am sick and tired of the
demagoguery that goes on in this place."

Immigration Questions

Rep. Frank Riggs, R-Calif., sponsored the immigration language in
the $65 billion bill, which covers the departments of Education, Labor,
and Health and Human Services. He said that court-ordered services,
like a free public education for illegal-immigrant children and
emergency medical services for illegal immigrants, would not be covered
by the policy.

"Our purpose is to strengthen current laws to provide more
initiatives for meaningful immigration reform," Mr. Riggs said.

But the Clinton administration and school advocates say they are not
sure what the provision means, and they want it out.

"This provision ... is extremely vague and its intent and likely
impact are both highly unclear," wrote Secretary of Education Richard
W. Riley in a letter to Rep. Robert L. Livingston, R-La., the chairman
of the spending panel.

While the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe ruled it
unconstitutional to deny a free K-12 education to illegal immigrants,
one Education Department official questioned how the ruling would apply
if Rep. Riggs' amendment were adopted.

"What if the secretary gets a letter saying that someone is illegal,
does that mean they get no benefits?" said Kay L. Casstevens, the
assistant secretary for legislation and congressional affairs.

"First and foremost, we don't think it's wise to involve local
districts in the immigration process," added Isabelle Garcia, a senior
professional associate at the National Education Association.

The chairman of the House Appropriations Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education Subcommittee, which initiated the bill, also
has doubts about Mr. Riggs' amendment.

"Most staff lawyers would say this would lead to lawsuits because it
does not have precise language," said Rep. John Edward Porter,
R-Ill.

An amendment that would have softened the immigration restrictions
and exempted K-12 students was defeated 24-23. "We ought to let these
complex issues be sorted out by the committees in charge of immigration
law," said Rep. Esteban E. Torres, D-Calif, who offered the
amendment.

The House and Senate, in fact, are waiting to go to a conference
committee over a separate pair of immigration bills. The House version
would allow states to deny a free public education to illegal-immigrant
students. The Senate bill does not include that language.

The presumed Republican presidential nominee, former Sen. Bob Dole
of Kansas, said last month in California that he would back the school
provision in the House immigration bill.

Web Only

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.